A boost for bilateralism

Down To Earth

The proposed deal in Cancun had to be rejected. What was proposed at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks would have been a deadly price for developing countries to pay.

Therefore, for once, our leaders did well. They were prepared to negotiate together and they stood united in the face of the disgraceful, utterly indefensible positions of the subsidised North.

But I am not cheering loudly. I believe the failure of Cancun is a victory, not for the world's poor, but for the machiavellian strategies of the world's richest "" the US. Because, as against a multilateral framework based on rules and regulations for all, Cancun's failure is a boost to bilateralism.

That's what the US wants. It has been busy making bilateral trade agreements "" Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Mexico, Canada and Israel are in its pocket, so to say. Now it says it will "aggressively pursue bilateral and regional trade agreements with countries committed to opening markets and undertaking economic reform".

In other words, it will use its enormous economic and political clout to squeeze countries into trade agreements of its convenience (the operative adjective it uses is "mutual").

This is a well-heeled foreign policy objective of the US. Take climate change. When the US walked out of the Kyoto Protocol, it rejected a multilateral agreement that would have limited the emissions of the rich world, so that the poor would get ecological space to grow, and the earth's climate system would be able to recover.

But it did not just reject the protocol, it made it clear that it would work overtime to destroy it as well. It says it will prove that its strategies for "voluntary measures" "" to switch to cleaner technologies "" and "bilateral agreements" (selling energy-efficient technologies to other developing countries) will be more effective than a multilateral rule-bound agreement.

Forget that what it is promising is that instead of the 5.2 per cent cut in emissions from its 1990 levels as demanded by the Kyoto Protocol, it will increase its emissions by over 30 per cent by 2012 "" the agreement period.

Where is the EU in all this? Its leaders never miss a chance to extol multilateralism, global rule-making and consensus. But its negotiators do the exact opposite. They ensure, again and again, that developing countries are left with no choice but to accept the bilateral fare the US offers.

At the last climate change convention, EU negotiators obnoxiously pushed developing countries to take on legally binding commitments on emission reductions, instead of focusing on the effective implementation of the convention and sidelining the US.

This ridiculous demand slapped on them, developing countries found merit in the US proposal to reject the Kyoto way. At Cancun, the EU perversely pushed for negotiations on the Singapore issues, which the South detests. Why?

Shortsightedness? Stupidity? Or deliberate strategy? Understand that the EU is moving to become a confederation of states, with a powerful centrist bureaucracy. This might explain why "" even as US officials negotiate like mature politicians, pushing government strategy "" EU office-bearers negotiate like clerks and bookkeepers lost in petty and arcane details, so that they miss the political opportunities to win friends and gain coalitions.

It is clear that the EU has changed. At the Rio summit, European leaders were propelled by the fact that environment was hard politics; in Europe, the green vote comprised 5 to 15 per cent of the total vote.

Today, green votes don't seem to count as much. Civil society pressure has become almost as marginalised in European politics, as it is in the US "" where business dominates. It is no wonder that civil society groups find it more effective to lobby developing country governments than their own.

This sad fact may also provide the key to the future. We know what the US is offering will take us straight to hell. We also know that the EU is a washout. Where do we go?

We have no choice but to engage. In climate change, we are the most vulnerable. In trade, we have already given away too much since the Uruguay Round. We need multilateral rules that protect our interests.

We have no option but to stay and fight. And it is here that we could strengthen the coalition that was born in Cancun "" between governments of the South and people of the world. A coalition brought together in common outrage and desire for justice. It is a slim chance.

But it is our only chance. We cannot let the US win. Because then we will all lose. Lose all.